Response to Emily Burke (3/9)

Q:Why do so many people only care about the issues of one oppressed group, instead of all of them?

Generally speaking when the topics of oppression come to mind, I tend to think about racism, sexism, and genderism. For example such as in the situation of sexism,many women in the workplace whether it is in business, law, or politics they are frequently not paid the same amount of money in regards to men that have the educational background. In the same situation such as racism we tend to think about one group of individuals in a population, such as the minority whether the are Chinese, African, or even of a Latino descent. But the reason why we only tend to analyze only one oppressed group can be questionable? First and foremost,it would be much easier to only care about the major issues for one oppressive group and also to concentrate on only one group such as the ones stated above (examples).

Sarah Palin, Terrorist or Not?

"We'll aim for these races and many others," she wrote on her Facebook page. "This is just the first salvo in a fight to elect people across the nation who will bring common sense to Washington. Please go to sarahpac.com and join me in the fight." These are only some of the word said by Sarah Palin in an attempt to "take out" or decimate house democrats who voted for the health care reform that was just recently passed just a week ago. The health care reform under my own personal understanding calls for a universal health care(insurance) (probably government based) that many Americans would benefit from thus making insurance (healthcare) far more affordable. For an example elderly people would not have to spend thousands of dollars for prescription medications or routine appointments to the doctor, dentist, or even a podiatrist. In general the new health care reform is in favor with the general American population because they voted for it. On the other hand, Republicans became angered from this most recent bill because they believed the complete opposite, that this bill would put insurance companies out of business and leaving the economy deeper with the most current recession. This is where Sarah Palin comes in because she truly has some type of animosity or hatred for the Democratic party. She personally has her own let me say "hit list" of several Democrats that are facing re-election and voted for the health care reform. This brings myself down to the question in which is Sarah Palin a terrorist? In general many would interpret her intentions in this situation to maybe be metaphorical or even just figurative. However in this day and age since there have been many killings in the past decade ranging from the events on September 11th, 2001 to the Virgina Tech killings, should we take these threats serious or just as a joke? More or less I would say that she is joking around about this but then on the other hand there are many who believe that she is extremely serious but who really knows, only time will tell.

1. Is Sarah Palin really a terrorist?
2. What are your opinions of the new health care reform, will it benefit the American population or destroy it?

Response to Abigail Lindamood (3/8/10)

Q1:Do extroverts ever feel the need to "get away" in the absence of social stressors?

Generally speaking this is an extremely interesting topic to blog about and something the average college student experiences on a daily basis. As you stated there are two different types of people, introverts and extroverts. An introvert as an individual in which obtain energy through relaxation, finding highly social situations to be draining after a while, and needing to take a break every now and then. While on the other hand, extroverts are the complete opposite thriving on social interactions as their energy. I am would also say that my behaviors are highly introverted around school but around work and athletics, my behavior becomes a hybrid between the both. The reason why I would have to say that my behavior is highly extroverted is because in general I am a self motivator and natural energy is prevalent throughout my body. However the more people I see that are working extremely hard, it just makes myself want to work harder and harder. However switching back to the academic environment, the reason why I tend to be more introverted is because school tends to be extremely stressful due to the multitude of work presented on a daily basis. Also there are many times in which personal time is extremely vital during peak academic semesters and personally, just being around people just stresses myself out even more.

But in response to your question, I believe that extroverts do have to "get away" from society because there is no such thing as a human being that never needs any personal time. Psychologically how can anyone or a personal be around people every moment of the day and every day of the week. Physically I could never see it happening because people do create stress either by themselves or from another person or people. There is no such thing as the perfect person in anything, everyone needs some type of personal time off whether they like it or not, and it creates a healthier environment for anyone mentally.

Re: Jacob Wheeler (3/24/10)

Q1:Given that egalitarianism is meant to provide equal opportunities to everyone, why is it so central in governmental thinking?
Q2:More precisely, can government exist in an egalitarian society?

In response to your most recent blog post, you have brought up many thoughts and ideas that I had also had in common with you. Within the definition of Egalitarianism, one of the main concepts is that everyone is created equal economically, politically, socially, and also in regards to civility. However I believe that having an egalitaristic government would perhaps create some problems if not executed properly. When I thought about a government that is most likely Egalitarian, I though of a communist government such as in Russia. Communism is stated as a social structure in which classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society. So for example everyone is also equal, making the same amount of money, living in the same type of house, working normal jobs, and there are no social classes. But is this type of government ideal? Generally speaking, I truly believe and Egalitarian government like this would not succeed in a country such as in America that is highly democratic or any democratic country at all. Also from a personal standpoint, I understand the concepts and the basics of Egalitarianism and since in a communist government which is Egalitarian and everyone is equal, what if a handful of citizens within the government did not work or did nothing at all such as in the case of welfare, in which some citizens take advantage of governmental programs. What if some citizens in this type of government basically took advantage such as in the case of the example stated above. Also on the other hand, what if there were a handful of citizens within this same type of government who worked extremely hard and earned advanced degrees such as an M.D (medical) or a J.D (Juris Doctorate;Law), does this seem fair that these citizens earn the same salary as someone who has no education at all? However to fully answer your last question I strongly believe that an Egalitarian Government would not work within a government, thus democracy would be the ideal fit.

Analysis of Dr. Edwards Presentation/Envy

Generally speaking Dr. Edwards gave an excellent presentation in which she discussed multiple topics that I would assume that many would not know a great deal of information on. In general when she first started to discuss her presentation she started off with on how many individuals within American society envy material items and constantly trying to wear the best clothing, driving the best cars, and generally being within accordance with the new styles. While this may be true she also discussed the origins of the Black Hebrew Israelites and how they have established their own way of living through their own personal beliefs, not in accordance with American culture which is an accomplishment that should be noted. However what actually attracted me the most about her presentation was the concept of envy came to mind and made me think about why Americans have to have material items as stated above. For example why do we need to have a luxurious car that almost costs as much as a house or the most expensive clothing on the planet? Truly it does not make sense whatsoever because are these necessities that we as humans need on a daily basis or do we obtain these items as a mean of satisfying ourselves through our impulses?

As Dr. Edwards described with the Black Hebrew Israelites, they started their own culture or religion in an attempt to free themselves from the "Western" way of thought, referring to American culture. In accordance they would also live a life with an organic diet, would wear clothing only produced from their homeland made from natural organic fibers, and they would basically isolate themselves from mainstream society. In addition one quality that many Americans lack is the ability to retrace to their own heritage whether it be Italian, Irish, or Polish. Truly America is a gigantic melting pot of elasticities but how come we have lost the culture from our homeland? Is it because we have been assimilated into something that was inevitable that we could not avoid or when many of our ancestors immigrated to the east or west coast did they intend to start with a fresh slate or a new beginning? Generally there are many families that do still practice their own cultural "way of life" but have we lost some our beliefs and standards in regards to this matter? However as we approach new generations, what will the United States be in regards to envy and being the best? Will it be better or worse?

Envy

Throughout history, envy, one of the seven deadly sins has commonly been charged with being unreasonable, irrational, imprudent, vicious, or wrong to feel. Many times this common emotion can be puzzling and complex and can truly tear apart the morals of a human being. However, many individuals and countries have not succumbed to this deadly sin thus progressing on a daily basis. For example, the country of Russia lives by a communist government, which is a social structure in which classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society. In laments terms, citizens are told what they are destined to do from birth, there are no social classes, and everyone is economically equal to each other. But in any type of egalitarian society which holds that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights has numerous benefits but also some downfalls.

Such as in the example of communism almost everyone is created equal except politicians that hold a substantive amount of power. In this situation, envy would be prevalent even though the general population is equal to one another in regards to social class. Biologically it is natural for any human being to become envious of one another because we always looking for an upgrade from our current life and it would be quite convenient to experience the luxuries we do not possess. In many cases, certain individuals succumb to envy because there is such a hunger to become better whether it is financially, socially, or physically. In America, we tend to be the best that we can be at all necessary measures possible. Honestly, who wants to be the person at the bottom of the totem pole? Probably nobody would because that denote that a certain individual is either unsuccessful and who wants to be unsuccessful throughout life?

However reverting to the subject of communism and since everyone is created equal socially and economically why do many Russian citizens move out of their home country to attain a better life somewhere else? Is it because communism tends to be oppressive and nobody has free will to do whatever they want in regards toward education and career possibilities or would it be that they are envious of the material items such as having a luxurious house, nice car, and a high paying job? Honestly if my homeland created myself equal in regards to my next door neighbor who does not have the education level that I have, then I would also probably move to another country to have a better shot at life.
Two Questions of My Own

1.Are egalitarian governments truly based on envy and if so, is envy a byproduct of egalitarianism?
2.Is egalitarianism something that more countries should try to implement into their governments to wash away the concept of envy?

Analysis of Meat is Murder

In general this current paper presents arguments for, and against vegetarianism in which Michelle Carter expresses both sides completely. However is consuming any type of meat product truly murder? Murder is defined as the killing of human beings under conditions specifically covered in the law (Webster’s Dictionary) and are animals that are common for consumption such chickens, cows, and pigs ultimately covered by the law? Generally speaking the answer to this question would be no because consuming meat has been part of the human culture since creation and has been necessary for survival, obtaining the necessary amounts of protein the human body needs daily, along with the necessary vitamins and minerals. While on the other side of the issue can humans survive as being vegetarians, also obtaining the proper nutrients from fruits, vegetables, and legumes? Even though both styles of living have been documented as acceptable in the United States of America, are both sides considered immoral, and throughout the document “Medium Rare Morals: A Moral Justification on Meat Eating”, there is no distinct answer to the dilemma but more of arguments that would justify which lifestyle would be moral or immoral.

From the perspective of a carnivore, consuming meat is a daily activity in which is necessary for survival and staying healthy. However Carter tends to disagree with this statement because essentially murdering an animal is considered murder, cruel, unjust, and ultimately immoral. She also states that we us humans only think about only eating whichever meat we are currently consuming instead of understanding where the origins of the animal came from. But does this mean that we do not know where the specific cut of meat came from or we just don’t care because we the objective of consuming meat is to satisfy our current hunger and to supply our body with the essential nutrients (protein, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins, and minerals). Truly if meat was literally considered murder, why isn’t every single carnivore within the entire world arrested and tried in court for murder? The reason why is because killing an animal for human consumption is not considered a crime and personally I do not understand why animal rights activists argue with Michelle Carter. However I would believe that Carter’s perspective on this issue would be neutral because she weighs out the pros and cons of each issue but ultimately she would defend that meat would truly be moral and unjust.

1.If meat eating is truly immoral, why don’t human beings stop slaughtering animals for consumption and instead derive essential nutrients from plants, fruits, and vegetables?

2.Why do animals have rights and if they do have rights, why are they not equivalent to humans?

The Improper Closure of the 2010 Winter Olympics

Last night was definitely a first for the Winter Olympics held in Vancouver,Canada. In regards to closure of the winter Olympic Games, usually there are a couple bands that sing,the Olympic torch is put out, and also there is usually some cheezy speech post-games speech. However the closing ceremonies started of the same as usual. The Canadian National Anthem was sung like Frank Sinatra would sing it and then after instead of a speech or acknowledgment of all of the successes and camaraderie between all of the countries, Jerry Seinfeld's new show, "The Marriage Ref" premiered at the Winter Olympic Games. But why this instead of a traditional Olympic closure? Truly this just seems bizzare and why would NBC even abruptly end the games is this type of fashion? Generally speaking the closing ceremonies were at 11:30 pm and probably nobody was watching them at all because who cares, this process happens every year. However was NBC thinking about the concequences about this action and would it retain some negative publicity? However I personally believe that this truly was an improper way to close out the 2010 Winter Olympic Games and also disrespectful to the tradition of the Olympics. At any type of closing ceremony, people should be paid respect and honored for their accomplishments so that everyone is aware of them (the athletes). There was no closing speech or even any acknowledgment of any of the athletes, no Bob Costas sign off, and even no end credits.

Is the way NBC closed out the Olympics improper and disrespectful to the tradition of the Olympic games and the participants. If so, why?